A useful table showing the total lack of consensus on the MMP recommendations.

I’d be careful concluding that retaining the status quo is beneficial to National. Neither United Future or ACT got any List MPs via the one seat threshold in 2011, and frankly I am dubious they would so in 2014.

If anything the party most likely to bring in a List MP might be Mana.

Also lowering the threshold from 5% to 4% is most likely to benefit the Conservative Party, which is a potential coalition partner for National. So again retaining the status quo is not really of much benefit to them – in fact could disadvantage them.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 12:24 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The National party simply has to review the MMP recommendations, and implement changes it chooses to. The idea that it considers a lack of consensus in the house as a valid reason for not implementing ANY of the recommendations is ludicrous. I’m pretty certain that there is a lack of consensus on National policy in the house generally, but that doesn’t stop them from enacting unpopular legislation. National have chosen not to implement change for reasons other than those stated, this is very clear. What those reasons are, we can only speculate, but it would be very naive not to include self interest among them.

The issue of a consensus is a red herring. There was never going to be complete agreement. Let’s face it, the turkeys were never going to vote for an early Xmas. Which is why the Electoral Commission was tasked with looking at our system. The Commission came up with eminently sensible suggestions. Unsurprisingly, the government has once again been too cowardly to act.

National had a clear preference for no change so it can be no surprise that Collins acted as she did. I cannot see why Labour is whinging about the outcome.

If National didn’t want any change and was determined to get it’s way, it should have told the thousands of submitters and all those who voted on the referendum. I for one wouldn’t have bothered wasting my time. In fact, the referendum cost millions of dollars. What a gross waste of taxpayers’ money.

NZ First has gained at least 4% in every election it has contested. But it has twice failed to clear 5%. Retaining a 5% threshold clearly increases the chances of that party being squeezed out.

As for the Conservatives, there is little sign of their obtaining even 4% support. But a lower threshold may encourage more people to vote for them, thinking thet they will do so: a tactic that could easily backfire if they fail to reach that target anyway.

According to that table:
* There is a 68-53 majority for retaining the 5% threshold
* There is a 65-56 majority for retaining the coat-tail provision
Labour’s failure to provide a position on the other issues makes the numbers less certain, but there appears to be a majority against change on every recommendation.

The Electoral Commission has proposed changes which would arguably have seen National not able to form a Government in any of the six MMP elections to date. You’d have to be the most incredible optimist to think this would lead to change.

I remain surprised just how parties are acting in their immediate, not long term, interest. It’s in the interest of all small parties to have a lower threshold, and didn’t the Greens almost come into parliament on an electorate a few years ago?

Why does it matter what the parties think? They should listen to what the public want and what the Electoral Commission have recommended. The parties own opinions frankly don’t matter.

We don’t get to decide what laws we follow and what our tax rates are so why should the government get to decide the rules they follow. The power to change the rules should be with the Electoral Commission.

United, Act, Mana have one member each but a “vote” equal to Parties of much greater numbers.
Since National have the lions share on an individual MP basis, once they “voted” for the status quo to protect their interests, then of course it was dead in the water. But what a shameful way to treat Democracy and the will of the Commission and of the people.